Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] TRI-X or T-MAX 400

Subject: Re: [OM] TRI-X or T-MAX 400
From: John Pendley <jpendley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 10:38:34 -0500

Christopher Biggs wrote:

> John Pendley <jpendley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> moved upon the face of the 'Net and 
> spake thusly:
>
> > For B&W, it used to be Tri-X all the way--in HC110, 1 to 31.  I've been out
> > of it for awhile, so don't know about T-MAX.  A lot of people seem to like
> > it.  But I got beautiful 11x14's with Tri-X, processed right.
>
> T-Max does magic with grain structure to give finer grain at the same
> speed.   The hidden cost is that it's less "tolerant" of exposure and
> processing variations.  Some people consider that the T-Max films are
> best left for the studio where everything is under perfect control,
> while Tri-X still rules in the field.
>
> > As for color, you can't beat Velvia.
>
> But not for people, and certainly not indoors!
>
> A low contrast portrait film like Kodak Portra or Fuji NPH is
> indicated for that application.

Hi, Christopher,
Thanks for the feedback, especially re: Tri-X.  I'd have spotted the 
limitations of Velvia
if I shot people, or if I shot indoors.  (Actually, I do, but usually with a 
Stylus and
print film.)  But almost all my "serious" stuff is landscapes/nature, etc.  I 
have tried
the new Ektachrome 100VS.  It's terrific, and faster, but it hasn't yet won me 
over from
Velvia.  Given the difference in color rendition between the two, it'll 
probably end up
being a matter of choosing one or the other based on application.
John


< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz